Research addressing EEG biofeedback (Neurotherapy) has grown considerably in the past two decades. EEG biofeedback addresses the quantitative EEG (QEEG) signal in an operant conditioning (rewarding/inhibiting of spontaneous behavior) model. It has been amply demonstrated that this intervention approach can change the electrophysiological signals of the QEEG (Thornton & Carmody, 2013; Thornton & Carroll, 2010). However, there are some 2100 variables involved in the QEEG signal (involving 19 locations and 5 frequencies (0-64 Hz)). The determination of what signal to reward or inhibit has predominantly fallen upon the individual practitioner to decide. What the field is grossly lacking is the definition of what cognitive/behavioral skills are determined by what QEEG variable, which is the focus of this patent. This patent addresses 3 cognitive skills (auditory memory, reading memory, problem solving) and shows what QEEG variables are related (positively and negatively) with performance variables, thus providing the empirical basis for decision making in this area.
The search for the relations between the quantitative EEG variables and cognitive performance have been the focus of research efforts such as Thatcher et al. (2002) and others. The purpose of understanding these relations was to provide a sound empirical base for EEG biofeedback interventions. All of the research in this area has focused on the relation between eyes closed data or simple activation tasks and subsequently (different time) obtained cognitive performance. Thornton & Carmody (2009) successfully challenged this assumption and demonstrated that the meaningful QEEG correlates can only be obtained if the subject is actively engaged in a specific cognitive task which assesses a specific cognitive skill.
The specifics of EEG biofeedback have been the focus of the four US patent applications by T. Collura, without specifying what QEEG variables are relevant to what cognitive skill. The focus of these patents was on employing eyes closed or simple activation measures (such as opening the subjects eyes) and pursuing intervention protocols which train the subject to obtain normative values in reference to eyes closed data. This patent is not claiming to be a biofeedback device but rather the knowledge of how the biofeedback device can most effectively be employed. Biofeedback technology has been adequately described in the Collura applications and doesn't require replication in this application. The invention described in this patent application can be employed by any hardware or software manufacturer in the QEEG field, if the appropriate algorithms are implemented. The format of the patent application is the same as employed in the U.S. Pat. No. 6,309,361 B1 Oct. 30, 2001 patent by Thornton.
Komissarov (patent 2008/0103409) claims “A method for altering a visual cognitive ability in a human comprising: (a) eliciting the human to imagine that he or she possesses an optical sensory ability that operates when the human is sight-deprived; (b) presenting the sight-deprived human with an optical sensory stimulus for a time sufficient that the human perceives the presence of the optical stimulus; and (c) eliciting, within a few seconds of the human perceiving the presence of the optical stimulus, a description of the optical stimulus, so as to thereby alter the visual cognitive ability of the human.” The inventor did report “On the other hand, there was a mysterious, clear and replicated VEP in condition B” (blindfold simulated reading condition). The claim does not present any information relating the VEP or QEEG variables to performance issues.
The search for the specific quantitative EEG correlates of specific cognitive abilities under cognitive activation conditions (in non-clinical participants and clinical subjects) has been the subject of much of the inventor's research publication history. However, only a few of these publications (Thornton, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2006, 2009, 2014) have presented the actual QEEG correlates of successful and unsuccessful cognition and have focused on the auditory and reading memory tasks. None have presented the information in the form it is presented in this patent application, with the use of processing units and flashlights. Research on the Ravens Matrices has not yet been published by the investigator. In addition, the investigator has increased the activation database considerably and has included clinical participants in the research (in comparison to the Thornton 2001 patent).
Thornton & Carmody (2009) reported on the problems of using eyes closed data in understanding the actual relations between the QEEG and cognition under cognitive task conditions. The study indicated that the relative power values of theta activity in the eyes closed condition correlated positively with subsequent auditory recall. However, the relative power of theta values are 1) generally considered a negative indicator of cognitive ability and 2) did not correlate with successful performance during the actual task. The article further elaborated on many of the inconsistencies between eyes closed and simple attention tasks (visual, auditory) predictor QEEG variables and subsequent cognitive task QEEG correlates to auditory memory and reading memory. The article concluded that eyes closed data and even simple visual and auditory attention tasks are not useful in understanding or meaningfully predicting what occurs under task conditions. In addition, almost all currently employed databases do not extend the frequency range up to 64 Hertz. The higher “gamma” (32-64 Hz) frequency range is employed in the data presented. The value of the information resides in its application in the EEG biofeedback field. Thornton & Carmody (2013) documented that application of this type of information and EEG biofeedback results in improvements in auditory and reading memory averaging 1.78 standard deviations across a group of 86 participants (normal, learning disabled and brain injured). All the groups were performing better than the normative reference group at the end of their treatment (average of 45 sessions).